Talk:California gubernatorial election, 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Third Parties[edit]

Are there any third party candidates running? Can anybody find out? FallenMorgan (talk) 08:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing sources[edit]

Why do we have a bunch of names on here that aren't sourced? They are listed as potential candidates. Well couldn't I list a John Smith of Los Angeles as a potential candidate? If someone can come up with some sources citing them talking about running or something that would be great, or else we should remove them per this. BrianY (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the article, added sources where i could find them, and deleted all the candidates for whom I couldn't. I'm pretty sure that every name on the list is now sourced. — Hysteria18TalkContributions 18:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
There's a little numbered notation next to Loretta Sanchez's name, but the article it references doesn't mention her at all. And I really don't think she's going to run for Governor against Villaraigosa. And frankly, if she were running, I'd have heard about it. I'm going to remove her. She ain't running, and there's no source cited that suggests otherwise. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Whitman polls?[edit]

What's with the "Whitman vs the Democrats" section? Gentgeen (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason, the polling agencies apparently didn't bother to run general election polling data on Tom Campbell or Steve Poizner. Which is funny, since Tom Campbell will probably be the nominee, not Meg Whitman. Talk about clueless. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

John Garamendi drops CA Gov. bid; intends to run for Congress[edit]

He should no longer be considered a candidate. The topic made news yesterday and it is also featured on his website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Villaraigosa is also out as can be seen here--mcd51 (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Pictures of candidates[edit]

While it's nice to have pictures of some of the candidates (certainly they'll be necessary once the GOP's primary is over), I have my doubts about including some of the third-party candidates' photos but not others. Thoughts? --MicahBrwn (talk) 03:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Equal Representation of Republican Candidates[edit]

Can someone with access place add the picture for Dave Tully-Smith from his website Also can we get pictures of the other Republican candidates from their websites for equal representation? This is Wikipedia, if it can't show all candidates equally what ever will? Additionally I have collected a Bio page on Dave Tully-Smith that I will be adding after I finish editing it, but someone should do so for the other candidates without bio pages. Just because Meg and Steve are rich shouldn't mean that nobody else gets heard, right?

Bdtca (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The image on his website is non-free content, and falls under the final criterion of the unnaceptable uses of non-free images. Unless candidates' images are specifically released into the public domain, or an image can be taken and released by a Wikipedia contributor, images cannot be used. I'd also ask that, prior to creating articles for minor candidates for office, you consider the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for politicians: if the subject of the article does not meet these criteria, the article may be proposed for deletion. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 20:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying I emailed the candidate and received his written permission to use the work as my own so I posted it as wiki commons image as my own work. I have also emailed several other minor candidates but I have not heard back yet. As far as the general notability guideline as a Sonoma county resident I feel this candidate is notable as the first gubernatorial candidate from our county in the history of the county. I feel that this historic event makes the candidate noteworthy for our county. I know many others who feel this way as well. At what level does the candidate need to be notable before the GNG is satisfied? Please school me on this as I want to contribute in a meaningful way. Bdtca (talk) 23:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the general notability guideline's quite clear: if the candidate has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (in practice, this means articles in newspapers and other news sources), he or she probably deserves an article. I don't mean to dissuade you from contributing, though: if you think the subject of the article is notable, you should be bold and create the article. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Adding a Candidate to the Page[edit]

Hello everyone. I would like to request that a candidate be added to this page. Here is his info:

Name: Steve Mozena Full Name: Steven Paul Mozena Title: Business Owner Party: Republican Website: Email: Certification: Please contact Debra Bowen, Secretary of State. There is also a link to the certified list of write-in candidates available here:

Also, I have a headshot photo of Steve Mozena. Can I email it to you? If so, what email address would you like me to send it to.

Thank you!StevenPaulMozena (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just finished adding certified write-in candidates to the list. The candidates name was included with the others and I will add the Web site to the external links. The rest of the information and a photograph will not be included because Wikipedia's policy does not allow for promotion or advertising. Please see: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thank you. – Zntrip 22:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate Image in Box at Top[edit]

Having just the Dem and Repub candidates at the top of the page, as though no one else is running, is biased and inappropriate for wikipedia. (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the images. There are not just 2 candidates. If the pictures will be there, all pictures should be there. (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Please gain consensus before removing the images. Until that point, do not remove them again, or it will be considered vandalism. Gage (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't care to involve myself in this dispute, but your definition of "vandalism" is not in agreement with Wikipedia policy. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 23:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I guess I will just add the pictures of the rest of the candidates. Or are you saying that you decide who gets to be seen and who doesn't? By what criteria? (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, first off, there are hardly no pictures to be added, so simply adding File:Replace this image male.svg and File:Replace this image female.svg to the infobox is imbecilic. Second, none of the minor candidates have been included in any polls or debates whatsoever, in addition to receiving little to no financial support, according to the FEC. Third, there has been a longstanding consensus to only include minor party candidates in certain instances, largely based on the three criteria I just mentioned. If any of them eventually meet that criteria, then they should be included. Otherwise, mentioning them in the list of candidates is enough merit for their respectful candidacies. Gage (talk) 00:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Minor candidates should not be included in the infobox unless they are polled to have strong support or receive a sizable portion of the votes in the election. – Zntrip 00:22, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Since when do private polling companies determine which candidate the voters are allowed to see? (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When the candidate ends up polling in single digits regardless. Gage (talk) 00:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating. So the private polling company determines, during the primaries, that candidates that don't poll above a certain percentage are excluded, thereby determining for the voters the only candidates who are "real" and therefore the only candidates who can gain in numbers because they exist in the polls . . . I thought it was the State of California that determined which individuals and parties were qualified to run. I suppose the polling companies know better what to do. (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The state of California is the one being polled, not the polling agency. Your argument makes no extensional sense whatsoever. Gage (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I never said the polling agency was the one being polled. Wells got about a half million votes when she ran for CA State Controller. (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't California State Controller election, 2010. In that race, she did receive 5% of the vote. However, that is completely and totally irrelevant to this race. She has raised little to nothing, has not been included in any polls, and has received virtually no coverage in the media, or aired any ads in regards to her campaign. Her candidacy in no way signifies that she should be included in the infobox, especially not based on past races; that in no way correlate with this election. If she does end up receiving a significant amount of votes, as determined by the Wikipedia community as a whole, not me, then she should be included. In addition, if she even begins to be polled as a relevant factor in this race, then I would not argue against her inclusion. She has not. She will not. Stop. Gage (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Gage is right., you haven't given any relevant reasons as to why Laura Wells should be in the infobox. Simply being a candidate for the office does not automatically mean the candidate is included in the infobox. There are currently six candidates for the office and only two have shown a level of popularity suitable for inclusion in the infobox. Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman are nominees of major parties with widespread support. Both got over a million votes in the primary election. Laura Wells got a little more than 12,000. How can you argue that her candidacy is as significant as Brown's and Whitman's? – Zntrip 03:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FYI: Indymedia at work: (talkcontribs) 21:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wells got the number of votes she did because this was the primary election, not a general election, so only registered Greens could vote for her. Within the Greens she received over 70% support. As you may know, many former Greens in California re-registered as Democrats to keep another Republican out by electing Obama. In fact, the last Green Governor candidate, Peter Camejo, did participate in televised debates and beat the Republican candidate in San Francisco. In Wells' last run for a statewide office she got more than double the number of votes that Brown and Whitman each just got. In a general election, that is the level of support that Wells has. GreenIn2010 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
To GreenIn2010: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to promote a candidacy. Much of what you are saying is irrelevant or simply not true. Wells did NOT receive "more than double the number of votes" of Brown and Whitman in the last election she was in. She won 260,047 votes (3.2%) in the 2006 State Controller election (see here). Brown and Whitman each received over a million votes. Laura Wells is dully mentioned in the article as is every other candidate. Her picture does not appear in the infobox because she is currently a minor candidate in the race, unlike Brown and Whitman. – Zntrip 23:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
"Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to promote a candidacy"
Could have fooled me! Looks like this page is already set on promoting the candidacy of two candidates. My guess is that the editors on here don't know what other parties in California qualify for ballot status, nor whom their candidates even are, nor do they care. The editors have a horse in the game. For the sake of the public, the other candidates' names are Carlos Alvarez (Peace and Freedom Party), Chelene Nightingale (American Independent), Dale Ogden (Libertarian) and Laura Wells (Green). Apparently it's worth locking the page to keep these candidates from being shown to voters and readers on the same level as the corporate-funded candidates. Afterall, this is how democracy works, isn't it? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
Did you even look at the article? There is a whole candidates section that lists all the candidates from all six parties. The infobox couldn't possibly list all six candidates, so only the major party candidates are pictured. This is no different from any other American election article; see United States presidential election, 2008 for an example. – Zntrip 02:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Of course I've read the article. It used to have images of all the candidates who have images available. Now only two are allowed that right. (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Look this isn't a "right". It is a stylistic convention previously established by the larger Wikipedia community for practical reasons. If you don't like it, perhaps you can offer some suggestions. – Zntrip 17:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems like including the images of all candidates who have available pictures and pages (looks like most do not) here would be a good-faith effort toward neutrality on this issue. As it is, since at least one viable candidate has a page and image, but is currently excluded from the box, the page may not easily reflect an online encyclopedia seeking to represent itself as a neutral source. It becomes more like a mainstream news source when it draws lines in the sand based on polls and funding and press coverage as opposed to qualifications met with the relevant election department. In any event, I doubt that the inclusion of minor party candidates would detract from the major candidates, but it would probably address the issue of neutrality in a way which could no longer be seen as in dispute. (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I would support adding the images of candidates in the general election in the article itself, but not in the infobox. Wikipedia does not strive to be fair and balanced (pun not necessarily intended), therefore there are only two candidates in the infobox insofar as there are only two major candidates. If a third party can become a major force (my personal line is around 10% of the vote or polls, since most third-party candidates actually reach that bar, and those that do typically get way more than that), then we'll reconsider the infobox. --kurykh 04:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Yet you admit that 10% is your personal line, rather than the line for candidate qualification to be in the election, nor a hard line defined by wikipedia itself, nor of statistical significance (typically 5%). If polls have not been conducted which include the minor parties, how does one know what percentage would currently vote for them? I will add Laura Wells' image to the page, rather than the box. GreenIn2010 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Simply being in an election has never qualified for inclusion in the infobox; that will be giving undue weight to minor party candidates. Wikipedia reflects the fact that there are only two major political parties in the United States because those are the facts on the ground. WP:NPOV involves the inclusion of "all significant views" (emphasis theirs), not of all views period. To answer your other point, note that while you are accusing me of assuming a 10% bar where they might not have polls on minor candidates, you are also assuming that polls would not include minor candidates as well. Click on some of the published survey results from the 2006 election (some don't work because they're old) and you will notice that quite a few of them do show minor parties, so your assumption is false. --kurykh 19:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Creating page for Democratic Runner up Richard William Aguirre[edit]

I am trying to spin off a page for the democratic Runner up candidate Richard Aguirre. Mr. Aguirre received over 5 % of the 2010 primary vote and is a very notable person. Can Someone help me to restore the Richard William Aguirre page. I have a lot of information to add to the page to bring it current. Any help will be very appreciated. Sdpolitics (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Declaring a victor before either party concedes or Sec. Of State certifies the election....[edit]

Why are we declaring one person a victor or not when the election is not yet closed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndmorespd (talkcontribs) 05:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's best to wait, but it'll be settled by this time tomorrow. Even worse are editors saying that newly elected candidates now hold seats that they won't be sworn into for two months. Everyone wants to be first to make the edit.   Will Beback  talk  08:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, Meg Whitman did concede the election, if that means anything. --kurykh 09:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


Why are the colors in the box orange and green? Democrats are usually blue while Republicans are red? Is there sonething wrong with the template? --Jerchel (talk) 11:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)